North Lanarkshire Council v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] ScotCS 206 (20 July 2000)

North Lanarkshire Council v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] ScotCS 206 (20 July 2000)

The amendment does not introduce a new obligation but merely expands upon the original claim of failure to supply accurate information. The basis of the action remains the same as originally laid, so prescription does not bar the amendment. Although there were delays, the defenders have not suffered real prejudice as they were on notice of the allegations and should have retained relevant material.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 206
Parties
Pursuer: North Lanarkshire Council; Defender: British Telecommunications Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion Roll Hearing on Amendment and Substitution of Parties
Outcome
Amendment allowed; substitution of pursuer allowed; expenses of amendment awarded to defenders; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Prescription (limitation), Substitution of Parties, Damages for Negligent Misrepresentation
Civil Procedure Local Government Law Tort/delict Amendment of Pleadings Prescription (limitation) Substitution of Parties Damages for Negligent Misrepresentation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North Lanarkshire Council

Pursuer

British Telecommunications Plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion Roll Hearing on Amendment and Substitution of Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment introduces a new case after the prescriptive period
  2. 2 Whether delay in seeking amendment justifies refusal
  3. 3 Whether substitution of pursuer is competent under local government reorganisation

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment does not introduce a new obligation but merely expands upon the original claim of failure to supply accurate information. The basis of the action remains the same as originally laid, so prescription does not bar the amendment. Although there were delays, the defenders have not suffered real prejudice as they were on notice of the allegations and should have retained relevant material.

Court Disposition

Amendment allowed; substitution of pursuer allowed; expenses of amendment awarded to defenders; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Allow Record to be amended in terms of the Minute of Amendment and Answers.
  • Award expenses of amendment procedure to defenders.